Animal husbandry is traditionally understood as a blend of the producer’s self-interest and duties of humanetreatment for the animals on which we depend. A livestock operation cannot prosper without healthy andreproductively fit animals, and thus the profitability of the farm has tended to be regarded as a goodindicator of well-being for its animals. Yet while profits provide an economic incentive for husbandry,livestock producers have never evaluated animal welfare solely in terms of dollars and cents. Taking propercare of one’s animals has always been understood as an ethical responsibility, as well as a necessary businesspractice.The ethical responsibilities of animal husbandry have usually been thought of in terms of duties thatindividual people—farmers and farmhands—must perform on behalf of the animals in their care. Althoughit is still true that the husbandry imposes ethical duties on those who practice it, animal agriculture haschanged dramatically in scope and complexity over the last few decades. New technologies pose challengesto the way that we understand how animals fare in a given production system. New methods may seem toenhance one dimension of animal health and well-being, while seemingly causing a decline in another. New scales of production can provide opportunities for improvements in overall herd health, reproductive successand profitability, while reducing the amount of care and attention that can be given to an individual animal.Emerging trends in marketing and contracting constrain producers’ flexibility and introduce powerful new actors into decision-making roles that affect animal health and well-being.Science and imagination are needed to assess the overall impact of these trends in animal production, and itis important to ensure that the ethical side of animal husbandry does not lose out. But in a technologicallycomplex world in which a producer’s choices are sharply limited, it is no longer appropriate to place theentire burden of ethical responsibility on the shoulders of individual farmers. Above all, consumers must notexpect individual farmers to undertake practices that will make them uncompetitive in the marketplace.Livestock producers will do what is necessary to compete, or else they will not be livestock producers forvery long. This means that the ethics of farm animal welfare will increasingly come to be seen in terms ofindustry standards, market structure and government regulation, in addition to individuals’ responsibility tothe animals in their care.We are entering a time when the public’s demand for ethical treatment of farm animals is starting to registerin the form of price premiums and special contracting requirements, as well as pressure for governmentaction. Clearly there is a danger that the emerging system will serve neither animal nor human interests well.Scientifically-validated and ethically-grounded industry standards can provide an alternative to rules andregulations imposed from without, but only if three key conditions can be met. First, it must be clear thatthe ethical goals and principles place appropriate weight on the welfare and interests farm animalsthemselves, at the same time that they recognize the role of animal agriculture in satisfying vital humanneeds. Second, consumers must have confidence that standards are taken seriously and that livestockproducers faithfully follow recommended practices. Third, producers themselves must believe that standardsare fairly established and administered. Although some mix of market incentives, government regulation andself-administered industry standards may eventually emerge to address the new challenges of ethicalhusbandry, only a system that meets all three of these criteria can truly said to be ethically justified.Who will take the lead in formulating and implementing such a system? Producers themselves can seize theinitiative, either through existing commodity groups or through some yet-to-be-formed organization thatwould be one step removed from the day-to-day concern with farm policy and profitability. They will needto work with scientists and government, as well as finding new partners among non-farm groups with aninterest in animal care. One thing is certain. If producers undertake a new effort to provide assurance thatanimal interests are being taken into account in contemporary husbandry, they can be sure that people fromoutside will be watching carefully, even skeptically. What is more, such an undertaking will almost certainlymeet opposition from people whose view of animal protection leaves no room for animal agriculture. At

continued . . .

present, the broader public is caught between these extremists on the one hand, and on the other a farmcommunity polarized by extreme views and reluctant to take any coordinated action at all. Producers canand should accept the challenge of ending that gridlock, for no one is truly served by it and public confidencein the food system is its greatest casualty.As science and technology advance, we have come to expect that standards for husbandry will evolve, andthat periodic updating and revision will be the norm. The complex trade-offs between animal welfare,consumer prices and producer profitability will also be affected by shifting social values and technicalchange. Ethics itself must come to be seen in terms of responsiveness to change and to what we have learned.The ethics of husbandry will consist as much in how the animal industries adapt to new knowledge andaltered circumstances as in the individual performance of age-old duties of animal care. This most recentguide to swine care reflects what we have learned most recently about responsible husbandry, but it alsorepresents a commitment to continue in the search for better knowledge and better practice. Producers canmeet their responsibility for ethical husbandry only by practicing what we believe to be right today and byresolving to test those beliefs, to learn and to improve in the future.